Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877801%20orderandopinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,774 chars

substantially less than the amount requested should indicate at least approximately how

the court arrived at the final numbers, and explain why discounts were applied.’” Peiffer,

6 Wn. App. 2d at 833 (first alteration in original) (quoting Absher Const. Co., 79 Wn.

App. at 848). This entails the trial court explaining “‘what part of the lawyer’s work the

court discounted as unnecessary or unreasonable … or the manner by which the court

reduced.’” Id. at 834 (quoting Progressive Animal Welfare Soc’y v. Univ. of Wash., 54

Wn. App. 180, 187, 773 P.2d 114 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 114 Wn.2d 677, 790

P.2d 604 (1990)).

The Cromars contend that the trial court abused its discretion when it reduced

their attorney fee award based on its assessment of counsels’ hourly rates and time

reasonably spent on the case. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
87780-1-I/12

discretion in its determination as to hourly rates but abused its authority in its

determination of reasonable hours and thus erred in its calculation of the lodestar

amount.

A. Reasonable Hourly Rates

The Cromars argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it disregarded

unrefuted evidence submitted in support of counsels’ hourly rates of $680 and $565.

We first note that the Cromars’ assertion that it submitted unrefuted evidence in

support of counsels’ hourly rates is not supported in the record. In support of its

opposition to the attorney fee request, TAG Realty submitted evidence that its counsel’s

hourly rate was $275. See Absher Const. Co., 79 Wn. App. at 847 (stating that a trial

court may consider the hourly rate of opposing counsel in its determination of